I get Mike Gravel (about whom I know nothing except that USAToday thinks I should vote for him), followed by John McCain (who I would have voted for in either of the last two elections, but I’m not sure I support him anymore), followed by Hillary Clinton (whom I would vote for over any Republican, but I kind of like Obama, and maybe Edwards, over her).

I got Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and John McCain. I have no idea how the Huckabee got in there, I swear.

I guess it’s pretty easy to get weird results from a quiz that only asks ten questions, broken down thus:

3 on Iraq that are basically the same question
2 on immigration
2 on health care that are basically the same question
1 each on same-sex marriage, global warming and tax reform (as if each had equal bearing on the average person’s voting tendencies)
1 completely frivolous question about what you want the POTUS’s former job to be (since I had to choose, I picked governor or mayor, so maybe that’s how I ended up with Huckabee)

I like the way you can weight the issues by importance to you. My results were: Edwards, Obama, and Richardson. The Republicans were all pretty low for me including Paul. Hillary and the other Dem candidates did alright.

Yeah, I’d vote for Edwards if I thought he had the support to win it. Right now I’m planning on Obama. Don’t care much for Clinton.

#21:
CC, who is this “we” that you’re always referring to in the bloggernacle, who you think can “win” by promoting Romney? It looks as if you’re referring to LDS members, as if a “win” for Romney is a “win” for the membership of the LDS church. Is the nomination or election of any other candidate a “loss” for LDS members? Are you involving yourself in an election, or a high school pep rally?

Um, no. It says that Mormons are backing Romney in Iowa. You are not in Iowa, so if you’re talking about Mormons in Iowa, your “we” comment doesn’t work. If you’re talking about Mormons in general, more than half of us are outside the U.S. If you’re talking Mormons in the U.S., a sizeable portion of us aren’t behind him. If you’re talking about U.S. Mormon Republicans, even, there is at least a portion who support, e.g., Ron Paul. So I’m still at a complete loss as to who you mean by “we.”

(Pet theory: you’re mispelling Wii; clearly, based on everyone I know who has one, Wii can and will win.)

I’m still planning on writing in my Dad (Jim W. for President)if anyone is interested in joining the crowd. Or do you guys want to be on the sidelines when the first person with the last name “W.” gets elected?

Do you want to be standing on the sidelines when the first Mormon president in history gets elected?

Between that remark and your article link, CC, you’ve made it quite clear. Your support for Romney apprently amounts to little or nothing more than high school pep rally enthusiasm for your “team.” Pity you don’t see yourself as part of the American team, which a POTUS is supposed to represent.

Oh, and if the American people are foolish enough to elect Romney, he won’t be the first Mormon president. I’ve seen Romney’s statements during the campaign. I’ve seen Romney’s behavior during the campaign. He may be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but he’s no more “Mormon” than Pope Benedict.

You can either get inside this rocket ship before it blasts off or you can stand in the spectator gallery and watch it. It’s your choice.

Actually a quote from this San Fransisco Chronicle op-ed essay sums up why you should vote for Romney:

“[Romney] is a technocrat more comfortable with the nitty-gritty of running reforming institutions. He has basically conservative instincts, but he also probably regards abortion and other hot-button ideological markers as essentially distractions. After an eight-year surplus of conviction and deficit of competence, technocracy has its appeals…”

Romney is not driven by ideology like some candidates. He has an immense amount of sheer talent and rarified white-glove executive experience. Few people have his skill set, let alone the group of people currently running for president. Some of the other candidates have noble goals, but they are light on talent or experience. I have sort of a libertarian viewpoint when it comes to economics, so I respect someone with spectacular private-sector experience a lot more than someone who has made their mark working for the government. I just don’t like centralized planning, and at the end of the day, government workers are just central planners who are a necessary evil, but a necessary evil that should be minimized.

On a lesser level, it would be good for Mormons if Romney got elected. It would validate us to a certain degree. But that’s not why we should vote for Romney. Even so, I was somewhat moved when I read the Wall Street Journal article about Mormons in Iowa who are rallying around Romney.

Personally, I think it’s pretty pathetic that anyone would need their personal faith “validated” by electoral success on the part of a fellow believer. The only “validation” a true faith should require is from deity.

Romney is not driven by ideology like some candidates.
Actually, yes he is: he’s driven by the ideology of the Reagan-loving portion of the Republican party, and will do anything he can to please them. You may well agree with this ideology, and maybe this is why you’re blind to the fact that he’s ideologically-driven. And it’s not inherently a bad thing to have an ideology. But he clearly has one.

I’m going to have to disagree with Nick—Romney is very Mormon. Not only as an active member, but as a formed person. But I know plenty of Mormons I wouldn’t want as president (although I know one I would, once he makes the age threshold).

So CC, you get on your rocketship and enjoy the view if and while it lasts; I have no problem with your support of Romney. But stop pretending to speak for Mormonism as a whole. You don’t represent us politically any more than Romney (who, to his credit, doesn’t claim to) does or than I do.

CC, please stop. This is meant to be an apolitical post for fun. Here in “Matt W.”ville, We love liberals and conservatives and middle-roaders and people who are butter-side up and people who are butter-side down and even people who are not mormon.

Personally, I think itâ€™s pretty pathetic that anyone would need their personal faith â€œvalidatedâ€ by electoral success on the part of a fellow believer. The only â€œvalidationâ€ a true faith should require is from deity.

Actually, I didn’t say that I “need” this validation. But most rational observers would agree with me that a Mormon in the White House would radically improve the reputation of Mormons both domestically and world-wide.

I freely acknowledge that there are Mormons who are not Republicans. But if you averaged Mormon opinion, I think most erudite observers would agree with me that it would come out as a Republican opinion. Even so, I will admit that I used a little bit of hyperbole in my rallying cry above.

Dr. B- (as an aside) I absolutely love reading your stories about working in Church History on Your Blog! I don’t have a blogspot account anymore, so can’t comment there, but the inside picture you give of Ezra Taft Benson is wonderful. Also, the time SWK kissed you on the cheek is incredible. For anyone interested in some awesome stories, click on Dr. Bs name above.

1. Romney
2. Huckabee
3. Hunter/Guliani (depending on how I adjust the weights at the end)

Although I think the validitiy of the quiz is extremely questionable, which I think the creators would agree with since they do call it a game, after all.

Personally I’m debating between Romney and McCain, so I’m trying to figure out why McCain isn’t in my top 3. Looks like it is because he was not a governor, and because I chose a different answer on the tax question (but I agree with his also).

The amazing thing is that this order is about how I would have weighted the candidates before taking the computer crash quiz. However, after Huckabee’s sleezy campaign, I wouldn’t consider him. I’m an independent, but the Dems didn’t do well on issues that mattered to me. I also lean libertarian. Less government is best government almost always.